On 11
September 2001, three airplanes, commandeered by terrorists, slammed into the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon ripping huge holes in the financial stability of the US and the
world, and tearing apart the veneer of security from attack held by the US  the
world's pre-eminent nuclear power. Nuclear deterrence, the cornerstone of US security
policy, was supposed to deter any power from attacking the USA or its allies. But it
failed completely in preventing these attacks.

The Pentagon, in an attempt to restore some security
value to nuclear weapons, have recommended that their use be an option in what appears
will be a long drawn-out "war against terrorism."

Most military analysts argue that such use would be
counter-productive. It would create inexcusable civilian casualties and generate
considerable anti-US sentiment, possibly encouraging the use of weapons of mass
destruction in return against the US and its allies.

In addition, it would be highly unlikely that any use
of nuclear weapons could destroy or disable the infrastructure of a terrorist
organisation. Such organisations do not have their personnel or military equipment
concentrated in geographical locations that can be destroyed by large explosive devices.
Rather they are spread out in cells interspersed in urban and rural locations around the
world. Many of the terrorists in the attack against the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon, for example, were living and operating in cities in the US.

In addition, the use of nuclear weapons against a
terrorist organisation, or a direct threat of such use, would be unlikely to deter it from
using nuclear weapons or WMD, but would rather have the opposite effect. Terrorists are
often prompted by a psychology of "heroic" response to perceived aggression,
including the acceptance of personal death in the battle against evil. A threat of nuclear
weapons against them would likely increase their perception of the evil of the state they
are fighting against, and give them justification for responding in kind.

Jayantha Dhanapala, United Nations
Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament for Disarmament Affairs, has warned that the use
of nuclear weapons has become more likely: "We need to be aware of the fact that this
situation could have been much worse than it has been -- consider for example if weapons
of mass destruction were used by these terrorists." (UN TV, September 19, 2001)

A report released by International Physicians for the
Prevention of Nuclear War in 1996, "Crude Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and the
Terrorist Threat," concluded that, "unless radical steps are taken urgently, it
will not be a question of whether terrorists can acquire or build a nuclear device, but
when."

But the question is - what steps should be taken to
prevent terrorist use of nuclear weapons? Relying on military force or international
cooperation to eliminate the terrorist groups themselves is unlikely to be successful, at
least not in the short-to-medium term. President Bush himself has acknowledged that the
"war against terrorism" will be long and drawn out. And this "war"
itself will likely encourage more daring and inhumane counter attacks by terrorist
organisations against the countries participating. This is particularly true if there is
no movement to address issues which are stimulating people to join the ranks of the
terrorist organisations - including the ongoing armed conflict in Palestine and the
continued civilian casualties from the sanctions against Iraq.

Under-Secretary-General Dhanapala argues that the only
way to prevent terrorists acquiring or using nuclear weapons is to eliminate nuclear
arsenals and secure stocks of fissile material. "We need to eliminate weapons of mass
destruction because they could fall into the hands of terrorists. We don't want to give
terrorists more tools than they have at the moment."

Other authorities agree. IPPNW, in its report calls for
the elimination of nuclear weapons under a negotiated Nuclear Weapons Convention which
would establish stringent international controls on fissile material to prevent it getting
into the hands of terrorists.

Datan and Ware in Security and Survival: The Case
for a Nuclear Weapons Convention, note that "The verification systems established
under a nuclear weapons convention would make it easier to discover a potential terrorist
threat from diversion of fissile material or technical expertise in time to prevent the
building of a bomb."

In addition, a nuclear weapons convention would reduce
or remove the political power of nuclear weapons for a terrorist organisation. Terrorists
commit terrorist acts either to retaliate against perceived aggression, or to gain support
for their cause through maximising publicity. Once nuclear weapons have been prohibited,
there could be no perceived aggression requiring a nuclear response, and any threat or use
of such a weapon would be condemned universally  including by potential supporters
of the terrorist's cause - thus reducing or eliminating support for the cause.

The same would be true of states which support
terrorist organisations or themselves are interested in a nuclear option. The Indian and
Pakistani governments received considerable internal support for their nuclear tests of
1998 as their citizens saw it as evidence of them joining the powerful countries of the
world. Also the nuclear weapon states were somewhat muted in their condemnation, as they
could not genuinely criticise India and Pakistan for adopting nuclear policies and
practices which they themselves argue are necessary for their own security. If nuclear
weapons were prohibited the situation would be completely different and a government
heading down a nuclear path would likely be condemned and prevented from developing the
nuclear option by both internal and external opposition.